We like to know who is logging on, and we send out an email announcing each new posting with a link to the site. To let us know who you are and/or to be incuded on the email list please send an email to: ron@ironrum.com________________A Note on Format Links to other parts of the website can only be made to a page, rather than a specific article or part of article and there may be more than one article on a page. Therefore, when you click on a link to another part of the website there may be more on the page to which you are taken than just the material you are looking for. There will be an occasional short article on the Home Page and the longer weekly post starts in the right hand column of this page. Navigation to another page on this website may be done in two ways. You can either click on the link contained in the article to take you to a continuation of the article, or you may go to the top of the home page where there are tabs to take you to the remaining pages. The address to which comments or request to be put on the mailing list should be sent is ron@ironrum.com or you may use my personal email address which is ronpolston@consolidated.net Later I will probably add an automatic email link that can be used to send emails to the website, but right now I am just trying to get the basics done. Send any comments or criticism to one of the above email adddresses _______________________________ LINKS TO OTHER ARTICLES STILL ONLINEclick on the link to the right of the article#223 Leftisst Deceit... page 4#222 We Now Have a king page 2#221 Cuomo and the Const. page 3#220 Is U.S. That Evil page 6#219 Dylan Roof Must Die page 5#218 Fallout From Dallas... page 5#217 Feminist/Black Activists page 3#216 The Power of Stigma page 2#215 Hillary & Elizabeth page 4#204 The Impact of Islam page 6 --------------------- All articles on this website are copyrighted on the date first placed online. All rights reserved.No part of any article may be reproduced for redistribution without express permission --------------------------------September 25, 2013 Appellate Court Acquits Tom Delay in Texas A Texas appeal court has reversed the guilty verdict against Tom DeLay for money laundering entered a couple of years ago by an Austin, Texas, trial court. However, instead of sending it back to the lower court for a new trial, the appellate court entered a judgment acquitting DeLay of the commission of a crime. There is a significant difference between an acquittal and the usual remedy in such a situation which is simply sending the case back for a new trial. The appellate court’s action was a complete repudiation of the trial court, thus confirming that the prosecution of DeLay was an example of the politicization of the criminal process. It will be recalled that DeLay, a very powerful Republican who was the Speaker of the House of Representatives in the U.S. Congress, was targeted by a Democratic Houston prosecutor named Earle, for purely political reasons. Earle was well known for indicting his political enemies and that included some who were Democrats. When Earle was unable to get a Houston Grand Jury to indict DeLay, the case was taken to Austin, the hot bed of leftists in Texas, where a left wing Grand Jury entered the indictment against DeLay for money laundering. The alleged crime consisted of DeLay’s sending some of the money in his campaign war chest to Republican legislative candidates in Texas. Some of the money in Delay’s campaign account consisted of entirely legal contributions from corporations. The Texas statute relating to campaign contributions prohibits corporations from contributing to political campaigns but does not apply to federal candidates such as DeLay. The practice DeLay was following was widely recognized as being beyond the reach of the Texas statute relating to political contributions. The Texas money laundering statute makes it illegal for persons such as drug dealers to run their ill-gotten gains though legal bank accounts to sanitize them. The theory of Earle and his fellow leftists in Austin was that DeLay’s corporate contributors had run their contributions through DeLay’s campaign account to put them beyond the reach of the Texas political contributions act. Their theory was total nonsense. There was no evidence that any part of the money in DeLay’s war chest was intended for Texas political candidates at the time it was contributed to DeLay. Once in DeLay’s war chest it was, of course, mixed with the rest of the money already there. The money sent to Texas by DeLay was not ill-gotten in any sense, and not, therefore, covered by the Texas campaign contributions statute. No illegally obtained money had been laundered The Texas appellate court recognized the Earle tactic for what it was, a contrived effort to politicize the criminal process by using a law to cover a situation it was never intended to cover. Nothing could be more destructive of our bedrock principle of the rule of law than the prosecution of DeLay in those circumstances. In fact our bill of rights was included in the Constitution as a reaction to the same kind of tactics used in England in the notorious Star Chamber proceedings. There can be no justice, indeed there can be no democracy, when those in power can corruptly use the criminal process to send their political opponents to jail. The DeLay conviction was covered in a previous posting on this website. The action of the Texas Democrats in this case is just one of many examples of the fact that leftists are guided by only one principle and that is power. When one attempts to make this argument it is usually met with the response known as ‘a pox on both of their houses,’ in which it is asserted that there is no difference between the political tactics of Republicans and Democrats. While extensive research may find an instance where Republicans have been guilty of conduct similar to that of the Democrats in this case, it has to be contrasted with the ‘business as usual’ approach of the Democrats in similar circumstances. Another case that differs but little from the DeLay case, and was going through the courts at about the same time, was that of Scooter Libby who was convicted by DC jury of a crime that was never even committed. Libby’s prison sentence was commuted by President Bush, but that does not erase the conviction in the same way that a pardon would.

July 19, 2015Trump
v. McCainTrump's
comments about McCain may have been slightly off the mark in relation to the
viability of his candidacy, but, as is usually true, his intentions and
instincts were not too far offline.His
statement, that being a POW disqualifies McCain from being a war hero, is not
quite correct.Heroism in time of war
is usually reserved for those who demonstrate courage and bravery under fire and success in forwarding the wartime objectives, but some of those elements
can be found in the experiences of POW's.Apart from whether McCain is a war hero, however, that status does not,
necessarily qualify one for high office.In fact any value it may have for a candidate for political office
should be trumped (pun intended) by lack of intelligence and/or political
aptitude.McCain has certainly shown a
significant lack of both.However
Trump's statement also negatively reflects on his own qualifications in that regard, and
that is true in some degree despite the fact that lack of political aptitude
can sometimes contribute to a candidates appeal.It can even demonstrate, as it has in this
case, the presence of good instincts.All in all, I don't think Trump has damages his candidacy very much by
what he said about McCain.I would still
give him a B+ and the only A's among that crowded field are Cruz and
Walker.

The following series of emails passed between Jim Huber, his son Rog and the members of his social group who are mentioned in the series of comments below this one. Ron, I’m forwarding an email from one of my twins. I consider it to be both lawyerly and profoundly thoughtful – terms not necessarily (or even usually) related. Jim H. Dad and Ron, Read an interesting observation yesterday. The author of the article noted that it was quite remarkable that the Constitution actually had to be amended to abolish slavery and to give women the right to vote, yet the right to same sex marriage was found in there after having gone unnoticed for 228 years Love (in a manly way), Rog The last email in the series was this one from Ran Pyle and it was in reply to the other two above: They just didn't understand "penumbra" in the old days. Today, the Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, understands what the Founders really meant despite their silence and they understand what the Congress really meant despite clear language to the contrary. At the risk of seeming like Boxer in Animal Farm, I seem to see a change in language elevating the latest 5-4 decision of SCOTUS: I recollect the phrase "law of the land" referring to the Constitution itself. Then, after the passage of Obamacare, SCOTUS' approval of ACA (via calling a "penalty" a "tax") was constantly referred to as the "law of the land," not the Constitution, mind you, but SCOTUS reading of the ACA. Then, I heard Chris Cuomo refer to the court's creation of a new right to marry as "the supreme law of the land." "Supreme" seems to me to elevate that decision to sacred status. Curious, isn't it, that a huge, unread act of Congress that passed by one vote is the law of the land and a decision passed by one vote is the supreme law of the land. Nota Bene: the Founders were wary of simple majority votes, wary of a democracy of the ill-informed masses; we now see why. Ran Pyle __________________#212Ron, I’m asking your permission to forward your articles to my Wednesday morning coffee group – I affectionately refer to them as the “cranky old white guys”. 6 physicians and 2 lawyers – one Harvard educated but nonetheless clear thinking – who hold weekly impeachment hearings and eat Pete Calabreese’s bagels. Your reprint/reproduction rates should reflect the fact that we’re all poor and pretty much homeless. Whaddya’ think?Best,Jim H. ReplyJim, It would please me greatly if you forwarded my articles to your coffee group. In fact I will put them on the list of people to whom I send a weekly email announcing the posting of new articles, if they don't object. There are no reproduction fees. When it is placed online it is available to anyone who wishes to read it RonAfter the above exchange of emails Jim sent the following email to members of his coffee group. Thanks Jim

"I’m pleased to introduce another cranky old white guy to the group. Ron Polston is a former Professor at Indiana University Law School; a practicing Attorney and, in a scintillating piece of good fortune, was born and raised in Raymond, IL – where I myself first saw the light of day! You can read his stuff – and believe me, it’s well worth reading – at the website shown below. He promises to alert us as new articles are posted."#208Hi Ron, a very important topic you are addressing. I have felt for some time that our President, is very sympathetic to the Muslim cause, if in fact he isn't a Muslim, or if not, the influence of Valerie Jarrett is very strong. And then when you include the influence of his infamous pastor, along with his mentors, Indonesian schooling, it seem a very compelling argument.Have you noticed the recent reports that the Pentagon has released some previously secret information about the Israeli nuclear abilities, while redacting those of other European countries, perhaps in retaliation to Netanyahu

Keep up the good writing Jack Stoldt

#201Ron,Nice expose’ of “Lyin’ Brian” (a Greg Gutfield reference). Though the Katrina and Helicopter incidents are mere misdemeanors in comparison to his daily felonious assaults on the truth.Jim Huber#197Hi Ron, A very revealing topic to those of us who have only been superficially aware of this policy. I would expect it also to be somewhat similar all across higher level education. The law of unintended consequences at work. Jack Stoldt

#189Ron,A spot-on Constitution exegesis by a spot-on Constitutional exegete! Well done!Jim HuberReply: Jim: I have been practicing how to pronounce those words since last week. Now I just have to learn what they mean. Ron

Hi Ron: Post 189, states the subject very well, and summarizes the feelings of many of us. Jack Stodt

#187Great , thoughtful writing on a topic that is so contradictory as stated, keep up the good writing. Jack StoldtReplyThanks Jack. Ron#186Ron... could the administration's reluctance to stopping travelers from at least the three affected countries, be that it may diminish their argument, regarding possible executive action regarding amnesty for illegals, and action planned after the elections. I have not heard any convincing arguments against a ban, and some of their points contradict some of their reasons. On a related point, the Washington Examiner is reporting that some sources say the WH is actively exploring methods to bring active Ebola cases to the U.S. for treatment. Jack Stoldt

My reply: Jack: Good points. I have tried one more time in #187 to come up with an explanation for Obama's actions. Ron

#172

Ron, Your Post #172 was a penetrating look into how our country has changed. Geoff

Megan's Interview of Ayres

Ron,I watched Mega Kelly's interview with that creep and I marvel as to how he and his ilk got off scott free. Geoffrey Crewe

The DisappearanceRonCompelling article. As a former Vermonter, I share your disgust with Howard Dean. Now if only Kirsten Powers wasn’t so damn cute! Jim Huber --------------------

July 24, 2015 #224 Do You Know What Is In Your Hamburger? The videos of two Planned Parenthood female doctors swilling wine and chomping lunch at expensive restaurants as they discuss the killing of babies by 'crunching' them and then stripping out the body parts for sale, is pure evil. There are no two ways about it. The fact that more isn't made about this speaks to the total depravity of this leftist/feminist age. More would be made of it, of course, but the mainstream press, which is controlled by these evil people has so bombarded the public with feminist propaganda, and so completely controlled the national conversation with political correctness, that the public has totally lost its moral compass. The depth of the depravity was brought into sharp focus when one of the Democratic candidates for President, Martin O'Malley, made the statement at a recent Party gathering that 'white lives matter, all lives matter.' The 'white lives' part of that statement reminded the evil ones of the recent instances in which the killing of white policemen has been demanded by their minions because those policemen acted pursuant to law when attempting to arrest violent young blacks, and some of those lives have been taken pursuant to those demands, Those incidents, which were fully supported by the leftist/feminist Democrats, resulted in the war cry "black lives matter.' The 'all lives matter' part of O'Malley's statement brought to the minds of the assembled Democrats not just the more recent abortion brutality, but also the horrible brutality of the Philadelphia abortion doctor who routinely used scissors to cut the spinal cords of live babies in order to end their lives. Recall that Planned Parenthood defended that earlier brutality, and they are also defending the more recent one. Not only have the Democrats defended all of this brutality and killing, they are demanding the arrest of those who took the videos that exposed it. How completely corrupt can they get??? Whether it was collective guilt that motivated the assembled Democrats, or simply the stark realization that their hold on power depends upon the black activist/feminist coalition, or perhaps a little of both, they responded with jeers and boos to the part of O'Malley's statement that referred to 'white lives' and 'all lives.' He was forced to apologize for having placed 'white lives' (i.e. white policemen attacked and killed with leftist/feminist cooperation) and 'all lives' (i.e. the babies being killed, dismembered and their organs sold, by Planned Parenthood, and those cut up with scissors by the Philadelphia abortion doctor) on the same high level as the lives of black hoodlums who attack white police. Whatever their motivation, it brings into clear focus the corruption of their cold, evil, natures when their hold on power is threatened. If one searches for a historic period which parallels the evil being demonstrated today, the one that comes immediately to mind is that of the Italian Renaissance. Europe of that period was just emerging from the feudalism that had followed a thousand year 'dark age' in which power was the only motivation of anyone who sought political position. There was no law and no morality to reign in the excesses of power. The Borgia family epitomizes the evil and corruption of that time, and Lucrezia Borgia is a veritable icon of the excesses that occurred. She was the daughter of Pope Alexander VI, and, yes, the Church of that period had the same requirement of clerical celibacy as it has now. The fact that he became a Pope simply illustrates the extent of the corruption of that era. Murder of political rivals was commonplace and, at lavish banquets, Lucrezia was known to place poison in the food and drink of those who threatened family power. It should be noted that Lucrezia's present day counterparts who jeered Martin O'Malley's recent statement, seek to replicate, today, the conditions of that prior era by destroying the laws and morality of this era. How else can one explain their support of sexual promiscuity, their preference for power over laws and morality, their attacks on the police who we rely on to enforce the law, their politicization of the criminal law system by prosecuting political opponents for crimes that were never committed (examples: Scooter Libby and Republican House Speaker Tom Delay) and their refusal to enforce actual criminal law violations against Hillary Clinton and those in the IRS who targeted vocal conservative individuals and groups, and their many efforts to prevent the enforcement of the criminal laws against black offenders. The American public seems to have become inured to the cruelty, evil, and dishonesty that is being perpetrated by the leftist establishment. Fifty years ago the public would have been demanding the heads of those who are so blatantly flaunting their foul deeds. However, as each instance of such behavior passes with no expression of indignation by those who control the national conversation, the leftist mainstream press, the public accepts it and moves on, never realizing that their sensitivity to the cold, cruel, inhumanity of these monsters has been dulled just a little, and the likelihood of any reaction to future such action has been lessened. When the Philadelphia abortion doctor's debased actions were exposed, there were some feeble objections in the mainstream press, but the feminists were allowed to explain it as necessary to the protection of women's rights, and they did so with the mainstream press talking heads solemnly nodding in agreement. Only those on Fox News expressed any real indignation. Now with the Planned Parenthood video being brought to the attention of the public, there isn't the weakest of protests in the mainstream press and even those on Fox News are saying that this new scandal doesn't compare with that of the Philly doctor. But it does!! In fact this one is even worse. The Philly doctor was a clumsy one-of-a-kind klutz who was probably just promoted from a job as a meat cutter in a grocery store. These Planned Parenthood people are from the leftist/feminist establishment,and they are talking about everyday practices in the baby-butchering industry. That wine the female doctor was drinking in the first of the two videos probably cost $500 a bottle. The next scandal will probably involve a revelation that, after harvesting and selling the organs of the newborn, they will sell the remains of the bodies to be ground up into hamburger, or maybe there will be an intermediate step in the dulling of the public's sensitivities in which the bodies will only be sold to dog food manufacturers. When the final step of selling them for hamburger is taken the public will solemnly nod along with NBC's talking heads, and agree that this is necessary to protect women's rights. We saw this sensitivity-dulling phenomenon in operation a few years ago in a much less gruesome setting. Perhaps, even the phenomenon itself had to be introduced incrementally to get the public accustomed to the tightening of the reins of the mainstream press over them. At any rate the first outrageous performance followed the 2002 death of U.S. Senator Wellstone from Minnesota who was killed in a small plane crash while campaigning for reelection. The Democrats held a 'memorial service' for the Senator, but at that 'service' there were no sad visages of respect. It was turned into a jubilant campaign rally. They were celebrating the increased chances of winning the election because of the boost resulting from the sympathy factor. I don't know if anyone actually said it, but the attitude was 'don't pay any attention to that coffin over there, we are partying big time.' The inappropriate behavior at the event did produce some mild protests from the mainstream press, and, as a result, the Democrats lost that Senate seat. Fast forward to the attempt to assassinate Congresswoman Giffords in 2010 in Arizona. The Democrats, en masse, blamed it on right wing Republicans. The evidence for their claim consisted of a campaign statement by Sarah Palin urging the Party to 'target' several vulnerable Democratic candidates in the election, and those targeted included Giffords. This, they proclaimed, was proof that Palin and the Republicans were instructing their ground troops to kill Democratic candidates. To give some credence to this absurd charge, CNN issued a memo to its reportorial staff to avoid using any military metaphors in the future. (It wasn't long, however, before Obama accused the Republicans of 'putting a gun to his head.') In the best tradition of the Wellstone event the Democrats held another 'memorial service' for the people killed in the assassination attempt, and it differed not a whit from the one that got them in trouble in the previous election in Minnesota. They were on video laughing and celebrating, telling knee-slapping jokes, and, obviously enjoying the boost they were going to get in the election because of the blame they were fraudulently placing on the Republicans, and the sympathy for the injured Congresswoman. This time, however, there was no protest in the mainstream press at all. In fact, one NBC talking head, in order to avert any reaction similar to that which had occurred in Minnesota, explained that this was in the best tradition of the 'Irish wake.' Mission accomplished. Sensitivity dulled by the Wellstone event.